There is no noun "mental" in the English language. This poses a problem for an OP that takes such a word for granted. Much confusion will come from making up a word wholecloth and pretending that it has some determinate meaning.

Oh, thanks for letting me know. I changed the OP slightly to consider your correction.

- :up:

Do you think we can take your same argument and use it to show that physical to physical causation is not possible if physical events are related?

Do you think we can take your same argument and use it to show that physical to physical causation is not possible if physical events are related? — Leontiskos

That is a very good question! I have a thread on "Physical cannot be the cause of its own change" that you can find here. I, however, think that the same type of argument that is presented here applies to physical events as well. This means that horizontal causation is not possible if the events, whether physical or mental, are related. Therefore, we are left with vertical causation, which requires at least two substances, namely the Mind and matter.

Have you considered non-linear and retroactive causality?

Therefore, we are left with vertical causation, which requires at least two substances, namely the Mind and matter. — MoK

Physical already includes multiple substances. There are many interacting quantum fields. If all this proves is that you need multiple substances, you haven't proven anything.

I don't think this proves you need multiple substances anyway, of course. Without any disrespectful intent, this doesn't seem like a particular deep or meaningful train of thought. Conway's game of life is an apparent example of a causal universe with a single "substance", that substance being the cells in the game.

Wouldn't B exist potentially before it is actual? So A doesn't need to contain B, it just must contain what brings B from potentially into actuality. We might say that A contains B virtually. But in reality, causes are never isolated. So our analysis is really about many things interacting together so as to bring B from potential to actual.

So for instance, before I studied Arabic I had the potential to know Arabic and there were things in the world capable of actualizing that potential (which I was capable of seeking out). That potential was actualized (state B). Having A contain the potential for B doesn't change A and make A something other than A. A could not have been the "cause" of B if it wasn't capable of bringing B from potency to act. By definition, anything that can be caused has the potential to be caused earlier.

No. I just consider linear causality here. Do you think they are relevant?

I consider all physical particles as the physical substance. Different particles are manifestations of different vibration modes of a single string at the end.

In this thread, I argue that mental to mental causation is not possible if mental events are related* — MoK

I'm sure you'll get plenty of pushback on limiting causality, I'm going to take another approach for you to consider.

Lets say you're right. Where does the thought come from? Does something cause that thought?

I consider all physical particles as the physical substance. Different particles are manifestations of different vibration modes of a single string at the end. — MoK

That seems like just a made up view to justify your current line of thought.

You think you need multiple substances to interact. It just so happens physics already has multiple interacting substances. Arbitrary reasons to decide that for you, those don't count as multiple substances is... Not it man.

Obviously that doesn't mean there aren't any non physical substances at play, it just means you haven't proven it with your logic here.

We first have to notice that each mental event has a certain content. — MoK

Not necessarily.

Unless each mental event "is" its content. The content "is" the form.

The Universe is built on fundamental particles which have no parts, yet things still happen.

Wouldn't B exist potentially before it is actual? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I have no idea what that means. B either exists or does not. I must say that, within Aristotle's notion of causality, a thing that exists has potentiality. B does not exist before it is caused, so it cannot have any potentiality if it does not exist.

I must say that I disagree with Aristotle's notion of causality for the same reason. If A has the potential to become actual, namely B, and then B becomes actual, namely C, etc., then where does the information about a chain of causality reside? It cannot reside in A.

So A doesn't need to contain B, it just must contain what brings B from potentially into actuality. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Then where does the information about B reside?

We might say that A contains B virtually. — Count Timothy von Icarus

What does virtually mean here?

That seems like just a made up view to justify your current line of thought. — flannel jesus

I didn't make up anything. String theory is not my theory. I don't know what is wrong with considering all sorts of physical particles as physical substance. All I am saying is that horizontal causation is not possible, so you cannot have a change in physical substance at all if you the horizontal causation is the only option available.

You think you need multiple substances to interact. — flannel jesus

I am saying that you at least need two different sorts of substances, one physical and another, which is the Mind.

Obviously that doesn't mean there aren't any non physical substances at play, it just means you haven't proven it with your logic here. — flannel jesus

This is off-topic, but I argue it: The vertical causation is the only available option once the horizontal one is ruled out. In this thread, I argue that horizontal causation is not possible when it comes to mental events. I think that the same type of argument applies to physical substance as well. I have another thread on "Physical cannot be cause of its own change" as well. So?

Not necessarily. — RussellA

No. See below.

Unless each mental event "is" its content. The content "is" the form. — RussellA

A mental event is the subjective experience we are all familiar with. If the content of a mental event is different, then we have a different experience, so the content of a mental event determines which kind of experience one has.

The Universe is built on fundamental particles which have no parts, yet things still happen. — RussellA

That is not accurate. According to string theory, each particle is a string that has an extension over space. The different modes of vibration of the string determine which kind of particle we are dealing with.

A mental event is the subjective experience we are all familiar with. If the content of a mental event is different, then we have a different experience, so the content of a mental event determines which kind of experience one has. — MoK

A thought is a mental event, such as the thought of an apple.

But in your statement, can equally replace "content" by "form".

If the form of a mental event is different, then we have a different experience, so the form of a mental event determines which kind of experience one has.

It still needs to be shown why a thought needs both form and content, when form seems sufficient, in that the form "is" the content.

Where does the thought come from? — Philosophim

That is a very good question, and it requires a separate thread, but I briefly explain how we create thoughts. There are at least two minds involved in the creation of thoughts, namely, the conscious mind and the subconscious mind. These minds are connected in a complex way by the third substance, the so-called brain. The mind differs from the conscious mind or the subconscious mind. The mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and create. The mind is simple, so it can be conscious of one thing at any given time. Therefore, the mind cannot generate thoughts. The conscious and subconscious mind, however, have memory, which in the case of the conscious mind, is very limited, so-called working memory, and it is huge, basically, most of what you experience in the past, in the case of the subconscious mind. Most of the thoughts that we are aware of are generated by the conscious mind. Learning something is different from creating something. But let's focus on learning first because we cannot possibly create something new if we haven't learn enough material which are necessary. Let's also start from a very simple instance of learning. When I say "cup", you, your conscious mind, can simply understand what we are talking about. You can even understand this with the mind since "cup" represents a single word. However, the mind cannot understand when I say "The cup is on the table" since we are talking about several words here. The conscious mind, however, has limited memory, so it can hold several items in its memory. You need to pay minimal attention when you read the sentence. Each word that you read then is registered in the conscious mind's memory. You understand what the sentence is about shortly after you complete reading the sentence. It is the ability of the conscious mind to generate what the sentence is about since the words are registered in its memory. The subconscious mind becomes important when we are trying to understand a long sentence or a paragraph, a book, etc.. Creating a new thought is, however different task, but it is done through a collaboration between the conscious mind and the subconscious mind. The new thought is simply created once there is enough material to generate it. It is similar to the process of learning in a sense, with the difference that in learning, the person (by person I mean both the conscious and subconscious minds) is passive, whereas in creating the thought, the person is active.

By content, I mean all there is in a mental event. By form, I mean how the mental event appears to us.

Having A contain the potential for B doesn't change A and make A something other than A. A could not have been the "cause" of B if it wasn't capable of bringing B from potency to act. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:up: